Gender and fitness to stand trial. A 5-year review of remands in Québec.

Over the past 25 years, criminologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists have shown an increased interest in the issue of differential treatment of men and of women at various stages of the criminal justice process (Adler & Simon, 1976; Allen, 1987; Bertrand, 1998; Bishop & Frazier, 1984; Channels & Herzberger, 1993; Chesney-Lind, 1987; Crites & Hepperle, 1987; Daly, 1994; Frazier & Hunt, 1998; Heilbrun & Heilbrun, 1986; Julian, 1993; Laberge, Morin, & Armony, 1997; Merlo & Pollock, 1995; Moyer, 1992; Riley, 1998; Steadman, 1987). The fact that women are less likely than men to commit crimes has, ironically, led criminologists to articulate two opposing views regarding the effect of gender on criminal justice outcomes: the ‘‘chivalry’’ or ‘‘paternalistic’’ theory and the ‘‘evil woman’’ or ‘‘punitive’’ theory. The ‘‘chivalry’’ theory holds that female offenders are treated more leniently than males. According to this view, women are less likely to be arrested and if found guilty, they receive shorter sentences than their male counterparts (Pollak, 1950; Simon, 1979). By contrast, the ‘‘evil woman’’ theory holds that female offenders are treated more severely than males for similar offenses. According to this view, women are more likely than men to be incarcerated and to receive longer sentences because their behavior deviates from stereotyped sex-role expectations (Simon, 1979). Most studies attempting to examine these theories have focused on sentencing practices. In a review of the literature on differential treatment in sentencing and parole decisions, Parisi (1982) found that in general, women are treated more